Wisconsin’s recall election

The jet-propelled Republican

IF HISTORY is written by the winners, this was the night for the governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, to add his name on the ledger. Yesterday Mr Walker faced a recall election to drive him out of office—only the third attempted recall of a governor in America's history. This was prompted by statewide outrage when, last year, the pushy Republican brought in a law curbing the collective-bargaining rights of public-sector workers.

Mr Walker defeated his opponent, Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee—Wisconsin's biggest city—by seven points, a wide margin. No governor has survived a recall before, but in a political campaign that has drawn, by the latest accounting, an astonishing $64m in funding—most of it from outside groups—Mr Walker outspent his opponents six or seven times over.

The drive to recall him picked up steam last November, after unions defeated a similarly restrictive collective-bargaining law in a referendum in Ohio. The emboldened unions then turned their attention to Wisconsin, where Mr Walker was looking vulnerable. Over 900,000 Wisconsinites signed a petition demanding that the governor should face a fresh election.

The campaign has been closely watched across the country. For one thing, it will inform other right-wing governors and mayors, struggling to cut their budgets, how far they can hope to get if they reduce the pensions and benefits of public-sector workers. For another, it will show the unions how much power they command.

Yet there is both more and less to Mr Walker's victory than first appears. It is certainly culturally significant that the first state to allow collective bargaining, the birthplace of the American Progressive movement, has failed to oust the union-busting Mr Walker. And the defeat has inflicted a painful blow on the unions. But this was never going to be a precise answer to the question of whether public-sector unions are overpaid, or to the question of what is fair in times of austerity. And, crucially, Mr Walker had exempted the most powerful public-sector unions, the police and firemen, from his new laws.

The fight in Wisconsin was about fiscal conservatism, jobs and the economy. The governor was able to stand on a platform that included recent cuts to property taxes and a newly healthy state budget. His opponent, meanwhile, had a month to sell the idea that he was Mr Nice to Mr Walker's Mr Nasty.

Others are looking to Wisconsin for signs of what may happen in the presidential race. Wisconsin was one of several Midwestern states that gave Barack Obama victories in 2008, but then elected Republicans in large numbers in 2010. So far, though, support for Mr Obama remains firm in the state.

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said that Mr Obama's failure to campaign in the recall election will harm his base in Wisconsin for the presidential election later this year. That criticism is a little unfair; for one thing, national Democrats never wanted this fight. But what is clear is that the Republican base in Wisconsin is now rocket-propelled. With 4m voter contacts made and Republican field offices set up all round the state, a formidable right-wing grassroots campaign has emerged. Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, is now likely to consider Wisconsin worth fighting over.

The huge political expenditure has fuelled a toxic atmosphere in mild-mannered Wisconsin. In one incident, a man in Chippewa Falls was run over by his wife in a tussle over the recall. Another low point was a Walker campaign advertisement that tried to tie his opponent to the death of a two-year-old child.

Mr Walker, now elected twice, has a mandate for more change. But it is not clear he can do much to heal the wounds of the state's “civil war”. When his deputy boasted on election night, “This is what democracy looks like,” she sent an unintended message: if this is indeed what democracy looks like, it is a worrying omen.

There is a specific bias here not to mention an outright lie when claiming the following:
No governor has survived a recall before, but in a political campaign that has drawn, by the latest accounting, an astonishing $64m in funding—most of it from outside groups—Mr Walker outspent
his opponents six or seven times over.

Now let me demonstrate the lie:
Recall efforts cost money. So where did the unions get the money to organize this effort...
So let's follow the money...from other sources first Walker's big
contributors...
Overall, over $63.5 million was spent on the recall effort by various parties. Walker spent about $30 million; Barrett spent about $4 million. Most of the money spent by Walker came from out-of-state sources – The Republican Governors Association spent about $4 million, almost all from out-of-state; the Kochs gave $1 million; the Chamber of Commerce gave $500,000. On the surface, then, it appears that Walker had a tremendous cash advantage.

Not so fast. As it turns out, labor unions spent an additional $21 million on the recall election. When it came to state senate recall elections back in September 2011, Democrats outspent Republicans $23.4 million to $20.5 million.

National unions have kept Barrett’s campaign alive by funding outside groups dedicated to defeating Walker. More than a year since Walker limited collective bargaining rights for most public employees, the nation’s three largest public unions — the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — have channeled at least $2 million from their treasuries and super PACs to two Wisconsin-based independent expenditure groups.

In terms of strict numbers, Walker spent some $30 million; Barrett and the unions spent $25 million. That’s not a 7-to-1 differential. And when you add in unions’ inherent advantage in ground game, you’re talking about a better-than-even split for Barrett.

The media’s attempt to pass this election off as a win for big money simply doesn’t hold water.

It is always instructive to come over to the "Economist" and view how socialists size up the firmament. This week you're talking about "a pushy Republican" (your words) and the "toxic" atmosphere in Wisconsin that he, alone, seems to be responsible for.

Your article doesn't mention ONE WORD about the fact that since Governor Walker started to reform public union law in Wisconsin, something amazing happened. Afscme (American Federal State City & Municipal Employees) union has lost 33,433 members. (For the math-challenged, that's more than half their members.)

These are not folks who were forced out of the union at gunpoint. They elected to leave, which strongly suggests they were not members of and by their own volition but because of coercion and union rules. It is a widely known fact in America that their extorted dues are then used to pay for the campaigns of democratic office seekers in one of the subtlest money laundering schemes ever devised.

This also suggests that the democratic party in America firmly believes in the efficacy of indentured servitude. From my point of view, Scott Walker doesn't even come close to the "pushy" moniker you hung on him. It's Afscme and union thugs who contributed to the "pushy" nature of the Wisconsin recall. And it was the "pushy" Wisconsin taxpayer who played a very strong role in re-electing him. To suggest it was outside money that elected him is selling the voters of Wisconsin short and sour grapes (vinegar journalism?)

As I said in the beginning, I don't drop in for enlightenment or even to hear your writers preaching to the choir. I visit to see what side shows are taking place and just how far logic can be bent in the name of "reasoned discourse".

By calling Mr. Walker a "pushy" governor for trying to enact legislation that reflected a platform he was clearly enunciated during the original campaign and calling the comment "this is what democracy looks like" a worrying omen, the writer reveals a bias against Mr. Walker and his politics.

All it proves is that in America in Wisconsin, $60 million dollars can confuse an electorate enough to win an election. That's bad news since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and billionaires can spend as much as they want on an election and don't even have to tell who it's coming from. For those who are still confused, The Walker folks outspent the Barrett folks by 7 to 1. About 3/4 of the Walker money was from out of state. About 3/4 of the Barret money was from in state.
Say good bye to democracy and hello to what? Aristocracy? Fascism?

Say hello to democracy and goodbye to special interests. Walker's money came from concerned citizens who don't gain anything by contributing. Garrett's money came from union members trying to further their own economist interests. It's a beautiful thing.

Having been born, raised, and educated in Wisconsin I have watched this very closely and know people that were deeply committed to both sides. The differences is sort of a red herring to this argument. It would not matter if one side had a $1 billion more than the other, by the end everyone was more than well informed on the issues and the political advertising was supersaturated. Barrett was not limited to a month to make his case in fact he was the exact same opponent that Walker beat two years prior in the general election. The only difference is that this time Walker expanded the margin showing support for him has grown.

There are two reasons that Walker won. One, the recall election was foolish and against democracy. Recalls should only be used for malfeasance in office and not as a vendetta for votes one does not agree with. Secondly, his reforms are working beautifully. The state, which I begrudgingly was forced to leave was an economic disaster caused by the previous governor that caved to union interests at every turn and kicked the can down the road rather than address the problems. Walker is creating an environment where small businesses can thrive and communities can enact meaningful reforms.

It's really funny to observe how the defenders of the collapsed balloon of a recall in Wisconsin continue to yack about Walker passing a law, attacking one union and "buying of" another... and so on ad nauseam.
.
I wonder, if the Wisconsin governor rules by decree, or is he sort of an absolute monarch of the state?
.
Or may it be that there is proper legislative body in Wisconsin, and everything Mr Walker has done was done following the proper procedure?

The article should be able to better find sources. The money advantage was not so big. And if we say the election can be swayed by money then we have to say president Obama basically outspent Senator McCain.

Time for the public sector to wake up and accept the fact you have no right nor is it ecomonmically feasible continue increasing the divide between your compensation and that of private sector workers whom you supposedly work for. You may recall the private sector. They are the people who see their taxes increase to pay your ever increasing demands for more pay, more health care, more pension benefits, earlier retirement, etc.

Sorry, but there's a limit to how much you can bleed from private sector workers whose jobs can be shipped out of state or out of country, who do not have guaranteed wage increases every year, whose pay is not even keeping up with inflation, who on average pay 20% of premiums for their employer health care plans (for those lucky enough to have employer health care plans), whose employer health care plans are far less generous than most public employee plans, who rarely have an employer provided pension plan and thus must fund their own retirement, and if they do have an employer based plan it sure won't be set up to let them retire with full pension benefits after as little as 20 years of service.

Here in PA where we are scraping by to keep the budget of $27 billion in balance. Of this $27 billion, $500 million is there just to cover the INCREASE over the previous years $700 million state contribution to state worker and teacher pension funds. And from there the state contribution balloons geometrically - 2013, $1.7 billion; 2014, $2.4 billion; 2015, $3.2 billion; and it keeps right on going from there. And that is just the state contribution. Local school districts have to pony up $500,000 this year. By 2015 it will be $1.5 billion - that's right, 3 times higher in just 3 years.

This is unsustainable. But the state worker and teacher's unions will not countenance any change. They just don't seem to give a damn about the private sector workers in the state who are struggling with insecure jobs in an insecure economy. They see no problem taking from every man, woman, and child in this state of 13 million an additional $80 in 2013, $170 in 2014, $270 in 2015, and on and on.

These public worker unions are in for a severe disappointment if they expect the private sector workers paying their salaries to feel any sympathy for them.

the best way to remove money from politics is to make political decisions as inconsequential in people's lives as possible. When that happens investing in political activities becomes a bad one and the money will quickly dry up. The problem is with us that keep demanding government does more and more even day. If government existed mainly to protect individual rights, property rights, then this would be minimized.

You can have your opinions, but your "facts" must come from Fox News. The Walker folks outspent the Barrett folks by about 7 to 1. Concerned citizens, such as David Kock and Sheldon Adelson, billionaires both, are the type of folks who contributed to Walker's campaign, directly and indirectly. And they did it 100's of thousands at a time. All who were near Wisconsin can tell you that the false, misleading, negative ads against Barrett were overwhelming. The unions, and concerned citizens like myself, simply could not compete with our $20 citizen contributions. Also 26% of Barrett's contributions came from out of state, while nearly 2/3 of Walker's did.

As for the dig about furthering ecomonic interests, I am not a public employee, but I support a fair wage and healthy working conditions for the formerly vast middle class in America. Simply because many non-public workers have lost that does not mean that they should be working against the people who educate their children to ensure they have no dignity and no security. They should be trying to regain it for themselves. Koch and Adelson and the other contributors do certainly have an econmic interest. It is to pay their workers as little as possible and not have any pesky rules ensuring a safe workplace. They are succeeding.

Truth be told we are all special interests. The larger is problem is how our system excludes the larger society from the negotiation table. If you want to be nice about it you can lay the blame at lethargy for the larger society. But the nation is not being served by a system where the bulk of the population isn't even applying a smell test to what is going on.

It would be useful to point out key issues. For example,using existing formulas for many US local governments, pensions would eventually consume 100% of local government revenues, leaving nothing for any government service. (By many estimates these government entities currently have 3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.)Those people who like high taxes should note that even if taxes were raised to confiscation levels, eventually the pensions would still consume 100% of the government revenues, it would just take longer to arrive at that point. The status quo is not acceptable.

everytime the greatest election begins overwhlemingly all across the demoncrates . it seems that we civilians get the well known promise from the guys we are backing up .but this is not ofen the case after the elections

All of the talk about spending on this recall campaign is completely irrelevant. The public opinion polls before the advertising started showed the same spread between the two candidates as did the polls at the end of the campaign. For the most part, the money was wasted. As a resident of Wisconsin, I certainly screened my calls in order to avoid the multiple robo-calls.

TE is trying slyly to imply that Wisconsin was united against “the union-busting” governor somehow imposed on it from outside, and failed because “Mr Walker outspent his opponents six or seven times over”. Weak, low quality journalism? Rather an outright lie.
.
The results of the vote (7 points margin!) show the state wasn't that united. TE itself recognizes that the drive to oust Mr Walker was initiated from outside of the state, by unions encouraged by the success of their plot in Ohio.
.
As to spending, it just showed that “Republicans, conservatives, capitalists, and perhaps even a few libertarians were willing and able to match, and then outmatch the famously deep pockets of Big Labor” (Ross Kaminsky from the American Spectator).
.
And most importantly: do all those, TE's N.L. reporting from Chicago included, sincerely believe that elective offices in the US are sold to the highest bidder?
.
What is the exact mechanism by which it's possible to buy votes in Wisconsin or nation wide? Isn't it time to invite international observes to American elections, like in Kosovo?
.
Had Mr Obama, who was the contender with historically biggest war chest, bought his position?